Choice
Sitemap CHOICE in a BioShock Game *See also Bioshock Illogic --- --- --- --- --- Some Player's Commentary On Alleged 'Choice' In The BioShock Games ''' : This about the original BioShock (BS1) : "What disappointed me, was that at this point you spend some time breaking the psychic conditioned control link with Fontaine, and regaining or gaining for the first time the player character's own free will. I expected more paths to open up once this was completed : I get to choose! Will I help Fontaine, or Tenenbaum? I'm under no one's control anymore but my own! Right there in the narrative, they state that the bonds that normally constrain player choice in this sort of game are being broken! But they're not. The Player's range of narrative choice continues to be just as linear from that point forward as it was over the course of the game prior. The writers might have been clever upto that point but then botch it after that point when nothing changes." - (( '' It got worse in Infinite BS, where everything you (the Player) did or tried to do is suddenly wiped from existence. Further was the contradiction of the Elizabeth who did this herself, supposedly was changed to never have existed to be able to do so. It demonstrates the peril of using such ideas as a story '''crutch when the writers create a game which doesn't even play by its own logic (Like the game using causality for one part of its plot, and then ignoring it in another). Even Fantasy and Magic are supposed to be consistent. '' )) --- --- --- Choice Without Cost - NO HARD CHOICE Actually Given The Player : I think they (the game company) Wimped Out. They had to make the ( supposedly 'good' act of ) 'Saving' Little Sisters pay sufficiently in ADAM/Upgrades. Some Players long ago added it all up, and it turns out : You actually pretty much GET the SAME either way (Save or Harvest Little Sisters). OTHERWISE, a clear majority of the game's Players WOULD simply have taken the (Higher) ADAM payoffs -- KILLED the 'Child' with little thought or care (and do it over and over). THEN the game company would look REALLY bad for encouraging 'That Kind of Thing'. (( '' GET THE SAME REWARDS -- So much for "Moral Choices", when its costs you NOTHING/NO LOSS'' )) If you got NOTHING for saving the Little Sisters (versus your obtaining tasty green Ability-Earning/Empowering goo for every one of them you gutted), HOW many Players do you SERIOUSLY think would take that path in this game ?? To many Players, since YOU slaughter things wholesale in the REST of the game (and most other games), WHAT would be the difference with killing a few 'Little Ghouls' ?? REAL CHOICES HAVE A REAL COST. --- --- --- 'Murder Children to Get Goodies ... That's a "Choice" ? : ' Even after they softened the Little Sister killing - Basically hid the grisly detail of what was happening (via green fog/mist and fadeout), and rationalized the act ("They are no longer human", "Its like taking them off life-support" ...), it still does NOT change what YOU are doing to a child in the game. Makes me wonder what kind of culture there was at the game production company (Irrational Games) that THEY would make use of such things in their game. Previously (an earlier design/concept), the 'Gatherers' had been some kind of Alien blob monster - Players could have little compunction about taking the Kill-It option. The designers didn't think it would generate enough 'Save It' empathy (and the game's theme later shaped up to copy (an easier) from human 'Nostalgic' world - instead of the (repetitive) alien creature motif from System Shock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Shock). They substituting 'cute' children 'Gatherers' when they humanized the games NPCs. 'Its a given' some Players would take the 'kill option' no matter how much attempted empathy was laid on. In the revised game design, they now had to hide the messy dirty work of that option, allowing Players to go for the inhuman 'choice' more palatably, when the targets were effectively children. In BS1, an "out" was given through the reward system, where Players got almost as much ADAM/stuff for NOT killing the Gatherers (so to not hamstring the game-success-important obtaining of the Plasmid/Tonic combat features). That offset the strong temptation for the majority of Player's to blithely (automatically) perform well-rewarded evil acts. Unfortunately, Good/Bad Right/Wrong ... it did not really matter because you NOW got the goodies either way. A Penalty (no payoff) for "doing Good" was eliminated - and thus also any real 'morality' to the "Choice". (Real Moral Choices in the Real World have Costs - this had NONE). In such an environment, what might THEY (the game designers) themselves do, or what lengths go to compete/be-successful - IF an HONEST (goodie-less) moral choice was offered ?? Something akin to THE immoral/wrong/bad choice of scarfing down every drop of sweet ADAM from HARVESTED (Murdered) Little Sisters ? ("Its only a game" ?? Shriek the Fanbois - who are basically clueless.) For Game Players, Optimal Outcome ($$$) usually trumps 'Humanity' ... and IT IS the expected result from the customers. But, But, But ... Playing the EVIL is part of the game!!!... The Inability to punish immoral behavior in games - inability to give a proper lesson - THAT is what is missing. Consider this : Making a game this way is itself a 'moral choice'. Levine & Co made their 'Choice' - guess which it was. Next will be an article about making the Splicers faceless (the masks), and ugly so that slaughtering them wholesale wouldn't seem to be killing PEOPLE (and the general lack of choice in gameplay OTHER than mass-slaughter). This isn't beating a dead horse. It is demonstrating the hypocrisy/moral-bankruptcy allowed/existing in the Computer Game Industry, which needs to be 'soundly beaten about the head' with this issue until they stop doing crap like this. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- . .